Registration Dossier
Registration Dossier
Data platform availability banner - registered substances factsheets
Please be aware that this old REACH registration data factsheet is no longer maintained; it remains frozen as of 19th May 2023.
The new ECHA CHEM database has been released by ECHA, and it now contains all REACH registration data. There are more details on the transition of ECHA's published data to ECHA CHEM here.
Diss Factsheets
Use of this information is subject to copyright laws and may require the permission of the owner of the information, as described in the ECHA Legal Notice.
EC number: 947-361-9 | CAS number: -
- Life Cycle description
- Uses advised against
- Endpoint summary
- Appearance / physical state / colour
- Melting point / freezing point
- Boiling point
- Density
- Particle size distribution (Granulometry)
- Vapour pressure
- Partition coefficient
- Water solubility
- Solubility in organic solvents / fat solubility
- Surface tension
- Flash point
- Auto flammability
- Flammability
- Explosiveness
- Oxidising properties
- Oxidation reduction potential
- Stability in organic solvents and identity of relevant degradation products
- Storage stability and reactivity towards container material
- Stability: thermal, sunlight, metals
- pH
- Dissociation constant
- Viscosity
- Additional physico-chemical information
- Additional physico-chemical properties of nanomaterials
- Nanomaterial agglomeration / aggregation
- Nanomaterial crystalline phase
- Nanomaterial crystallite and grain size
- Nanomaterial aspect ratio / shape
- Nanomaterial specific surface area
- Nanomaterial Zeta potential
- Nanomaterial surface chemistry
- Nanomaterial dustiness
- Nanomaterial porosity
- Nanomaterial pour density
- Nanomaterial photocatalytic activity
- Nanomaterial radical formation potential
- Nanomaterial catalytic activity
- Endpoint summary
- Stability
- Biodegradation
- Bioaccumulation
- Transport and distribution
- Environmental data
- Additional information on environmental fate and behaviour
- Ecotoxicological Summary
- Aquatic toxicity
- Endpoint summary
- Short-term toxicity to fish
- Long-term toxicity to fish
- Short-term toxicity to aquatic invertebrates
- Long-term toxicity to aquatic invertebrates
- Toxicity to aquatic algae and cyanobacteria
- Toxicity to aquatic plants other than algae
- Toxicity to microorganisms
- Endocrine disrupter testing in aquatic vertebrates – in vivo
- Toxicity to other aquatic organisms
- Sediment toxicity
- Terrestrial toxicity
- Biological effects monitoring
- Biotransformation and kinetics
- Additional ecotoxological information
- Toxicological Summary
- Toxicokinetics, metabolism and distribution
- Acute Toxicity
- Irritation / corrosion
- Sensitisation
- Repeated dose toxicity
- Genetic toxicity
- Carcinogenicity
- Toxicity to reproduction
- Specific investigations
- Exposure related observations in humans
- Toxic effects on livestock and pets
- Additional toxicological data
Endpoint summary
Administrative data
Description of key information
There were 4 negative Buehler studies and 2 negative Maximisation studies, with proper performed intradermal and dermal induction concentrations, adequate challenge concentration and clean negative controls. There was no evidence for a sensitisation potential from these studies, i.e. the sensitisation rates were 0%. In addition, there was no evidence for a skin sensitisation potential from two Human Repeated Insult Patch Tests involving a total of 208 volunteers.
Key value for chemical safety assessment
Skin sensitisation
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- no adverse effect observed (not sensitising)
- Additional information:
In two dermal sensitization studies with the target TEA-Esterquat (CAS 91032-11-0; Clariant 2002 and Kao 1990) guinea pigs were tested using the method of Buehler according to OECD guideline 406. Dermal induction was performed with undiluted test substance. None of the animals of the test or control group showed any positive skin reactions after challenge treatment with the undiluted test substance. The sensitisation rate at 24 h and at 48 h was 0 %. In addition, there were 2 negative Buehler studies (Evonik, 1993 and Clariant 2004) and 2 negative Maximisation studies (Kao 1997 and and Evonik 1992) performed with TEA-Esterquats, with proper performed intradermal and dermal induction concentrations, adequate challenge concentration and clean negative controls. There was no evidence for a sensitisation potential from these studies, i.e. the sensitisation rates were 0%. One Buehler study (Cognis, 1994b) revealed positive reactions in > 15 % out of 20 animals with a challenge concentration of 10 % test substance. Grades were at the lower end of the scale i.e. grades ≤ 1. A re-challenge with 3 % test substance revealed slight reactions (≤ grade 1) in only three animals on only one side of their flanks. The negative control groups showed each time no reactions. Since a reaction is only regarded as positive, if they appear on both flanks and since the grade has not increased in severity, this reaction may reflect irritation rather than sensitisation. This also correlates with the reduced challenge concentration. However, taking the number of animals having reacted positively at 10% challenge into consideration, the classification & labeling cut off level of 15 % was met. Due to the grades being on the lower end of the scale the findings in this study reflect a weak sensitisation. The result of another Buehler study (Cognis, 1994a) was considered ambiguous for the following reasons: A challenge concentration of 3 % resulted in reactions in the test and negative control group on both flanks. This observation was confirmed at re-challenge with the same concentration. A re-challenge with 1 % test substance was evaluated negative, as no effects were observed on the right flank (which one is recommended for treatment by the OECD guideline 406). However, reduced reactions only at one time point and with grade 1 in 3/20 animals were observable only on the left flank. Also, inconsistent pattern and in most cases rapid fading of responses were observed at challenge and re-challenge in test and control animals. These findings may reflect irritation rather than sensitization. One study is a modified Buehler study (Stepan, 1983), which did not include a negative control. Therefore, the results could not be interpreted sufficiently and the study was rated as ‘not reliable’ (Klimisch 3) i.e. excluded from evaluation. Three out of the 9 remaining Buehler tests were rated as ‘not reliable’ (Klimisch 3). While compliant with the testing guidelines, a high level of irritation was observed (Kao (1989b), Cognis (1991) and Cognis (1995a)) in test and control animals. Since no re-challenge was conducted in these studies, no clear conclusion can be drawn and therefore a Klimisch code of 3 was assigned. One out of the three Maximisation studies is also rated as ‘not reliable’ (Klimisch 3) because all control animals showed irritating reactions which were even more severe than those seen in the test animals. Again, due to the potential masking effect of irritation, no clear assessment of the skin sensitising potential can be made from this study (Cognis, 1990a).
Reliable studies, evaluated according to the requirements for classification & labeling are summarized in table 1.
There was no evidence for a skin sensitisation potential from the two Human Repeated Insult Patch Tests involving a total of 208 volunteers.
Table 1: Reliable sensitisation studies with different methods
Method
fully
saturated
TEA-EQ
partially unsaturated TEA-EQ
oleic acid-based TEA-EQ
Buehler
2 negative
2 negative
1 ambiguous
1 weak sensitizer
Maximisation (Magnussen and Kligman)
1 negative
1 negative
Human HRIPT
2 negative studies with a total of 208 volunteers
None of the 2 studies involving exposures of a total of 208 human volunteers to TEA-Esterquats was considered to induce a skin sensitisation response in humans (see section 7.10.4). The ability of chemicals to penetrate the human skin is a pre-requisite to cause a skin sensitisation response. Due to the relatively high molecular weight and physico-chemical properties the dermal penetration of TEA-Esterquats can be considered to be very low as outlined in chapter 7.1 toxicokinetics.
In conclusion, there was no evidence that the investigated TEA-Esterquats induced and/or elicited skin sensitisation responses in humans or the more accurate predicting adjuvant-type method in animals. A comparable conclusion is also drawn in the HERA Risk Assessment Report (RAR), where the TEA-Esterquats as well as two other substance classes of the Esterquat family (HEQ and MDEA-Esterquat) have been evaluated. The whole Esterquat family was judged to be non-sensitizing in the HERA RAR.
Respiratory sensitisation
Endpoint conclusion
- Endpoint conclusion:
- no study available
Justification for classification or non-classification
Classification, Labelling, and Packaging Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008
The available experimental test data are reliable and suitable for classification purposes under Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008. The substance is not considered to be classified for skin sensitisation under Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008, as amended for the tenth time in Regulation (EU) No 2017/ 776.
Information on Registered Substances comes from registration dossiers which have been assigned a registration number. The assignment of a registration number does however not guarantee that the information in the dossier is correct or that the dossier is compliant with Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (the REACH Regulation). This information has not been reviewed or verified by the Agency or any other authority. The content is subject to change without prior notice.
Reproduction or further distribution of this information may be subject to copyright protection. Use of the information without obtaining the permission from the owner(s) of the respective information might violate the rights of the owner.